§

Safeway, Inc. v. Kroy IP Holdings, LLC

09412147 (P.T.A.B. Sep. 11, 2014)
Safeway, Inc. v. Kroy IP Holdings, LLC

8 Cited authorities

  1. In re Translogic Technology

    504 F.3d 1249 (Fed. Cir. 2007)   Cited 44 times   2 Legal Analyses
    Recognizing that the Supreme Court set aside the rigid application of the TSM Test and ensured use of customary knowledge as an ingredient in that equation.

  2. Kroy Ip Holdings, LLC v. Starbucks Corp.

    CASE NO. 2:13-cv-936-JRG (E.D. Tex. Sep. 30, 2014)   Cited 2 times

    CASE NO. 2:13-cv-936-JRG 09-30-2014 KROY IP HOLDINGS, LLC, Plaintiff, v. STARBUCKS CORPORATION, INC. et al., Defendants. RODNEY GILSTRAP UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER I. INTRODUCTION Pending before the Court is Starbucks Corporation's ("Starbucks") Motion to Transfer Venue (Dkt. No. 14). Starbucks contends that the Western District of Washington is a clearly more convenient forum for this case than the Eastern District of Texas. Plaintiff Kroy IP Holdings, LLC ("Kroy")

  3. Kroy Ip Holdings, LLC v. Safeway, Inc.

    Civil Action No. 2:12-cv-00800-JRG-RSP (E.D. Tex. Jun. 4, 2014)   Cited 1 times

    Civil Action No. 2:12-cv-00800-JRG-RSP Civil Action No. 2:13-cv-00141-JRG-RSP 06-04-2014 KROY IP HOLDINGS, LLC, Plaintiff, v. SAFEWAY, INC. et. al., Defendant. KROY IP HOLDINGS, LLC, Plaintiff, v. THE KROGER CO., Defendant. ROY S. PAYNE MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER On April 9, 2014, the Court held a hearing to determine the proper construction of the disputed claim terms in United States Patent No. 7,054,830. After considering the arguments made by the parties at the hearing and in the parties' claim

  4. Section 102 - Conditions for patentability; novelty

    35 U.S.C. § 102   Cited 5,944 times   960 Legal Analyses
    Prohibiting the grant of a patent to one who "did not himself invent the subject matter sought to be patented"

  5. Section 314 - Institution of inter partes review

    35 U.S.C. § 314   Cited 370 times   627 Legal Analyses
    Directing our attention to the Director's decision whether to institute inter partes review "under this chapter" rather than "under this section"

  6. Section 42.100 - Procedure; pendency

    37 C.F.R. § 42.100   Cited 188 times   75 Legal Analyses
    Providing that the PTAB gives " claim . . . its broadest reasonable construction in light of the specification of the patent in which it appears"

  7. Section 42.108 - Institution of inter partes review

    37 C.F.R. § 42.108   Cited 45 times   69 Legal Analyses
    Permitting partial institution

  8. Section 42.65 - Expert testimony; tests and data

    37 C.F.R. § 42.65   Cited 5 times   15 Legal Analyses
    Discussing "[e]xpert testimony"